Ravenna on Transit. Performance?

by Rupert Sun Sep 01, 2013 5:25 pm

Not sure what to expect from our Ravenna (2.4 litre Transit). What would be a realistic motorway cruising speed? What sort of mpg might we expect. Grateful for advice from experienced owners.

by Dutto Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:21 am

Hi there,

With judicious use of the accelerator and brakes we get 34.2mpg out of "Petal", a 1998 2.4 litre turbo Transit. allthumbz

However, with a maximum speed of 50mph this requires a steely disregard for the boy-racers and HGV drivers that want us to go faster! wave

If we go any faster than 50mph the mpg drops down to 28mpg! tap_fingers

On a 2,000 mile round trip (e.g. Skegness to Venice and back) at £1.40 a litre (£6.36 a gallon) this results in a difference of £82 (£454 v. £372) which is almost enough to pay for an easy run using French toll roads (which are provided with safe overnight stopping places).

The lower speed also saves money by reducing wear on tyres, engine, clutch and brakes. allthumbz

Hope this helps. allthumbz

Best regards,
drinksallround

by **roli** Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:33 am

Going from memory our neighbour used to get around 28mpg, (better on motorways and in France) from the Ravenna, not as aerodynamic as the the Duetto. Performance was fine and the Ford would be my choice of the 2 chassis offered on this model

by -mojo- Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:21 am

This is probably going to depend on year of manufacture.

If it's a 2.4l (and not a 2.5l like the pre-2000 models) then consumption is likely to be better, and better still post-2002 because IIRC the diesels went common-rail then, and that should improve MPG significantly.

by Rupert Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:30 am

Thanks for that advice. I saw two reviews by owners claiming \"effortless" 70mph cruising on motorways. Is that realistic, even if you were prepared for the poor fuel consumption at that speed?Dutto wrote:Hi there,

With judicious use of the accelerator and brakes we get 34.2mpg out of "Petal", a 1998 2.4 litre turbo Transit.

However, with a maximum speed of 50mph this requires a steely disregard for the boy-racers and HGV drivers that want us to go faster!

If we go any faster than 50mph the mpg drops down to 28mpg!

On a 2,000 mile round trip (e.g. Skegness to Venice and back) at £1.40 a litre (£6.36 a gallon) this results in a difference of £82 (£454 v. £372) which is almost enough to pay for an easy run using French toll roads (which are provided with safe overnight stopping places).

The lower speed also saves money by reducing wear on tyres, engine, clutch and brakes.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,

by -mojo- Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:41 am

Don't forget that (if my assumption is right and you are running a post-2000 van) "Petal" has a completely different generation of engine.

I owned a similar Mk5-based conversion (but, unlike Dutto's "Petal", a SWB) and it would cruise effortlessly at 70MPH - and would easily exceed 80MPH as long as the hills weren't too steep - but the cost in MPG was severe. Like "Petal", mine stayed below 60MPH, with almost exactly the same MPG (around 34) as a result.

If yours is a Mk6 common rail injection then I would expect MPG to be in the upper 30's provided you don't spend all your motorways miles doing 70+MPH, though it should cruise effortlessly at 70 if you want it to.

by Dutto Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:49 pm

-mojo- wrote:Don't forget that (if my assumption is right and you are running a post-2000 van) "Petal" has a completely different generation of engine.
.........

I am well aware that "Petal" is an 'old' 1998 model and modern engines can (indeed should) return much better mpg statistics. tap_fingers

However, that should NOT be a reason to up the speed so that the motor returns something similar to "Petal"! wave

Although modern engines can return much better mileage under similar conditions they still perform at their optimum MPG rate if the are driven below the 50mph limit and care and attention is given to accelerating and braking. allthumbz

If I was driving a modern Auto-Sleeper (something like a Gloucester) I would definitely NOT be "cruising effortlessly at 70mph" and getting 32mpg; I would still be doing 50mph and expecting over 40mpg!! wave

Best regards,
drinksallround

by deejay Mon Sep 23, 2013 4:01 pm

We have just returned from a 1700 mile Scottish trip in our 2004 125bhp Transit based Ravenna and managed to average nearly 28mpg. This was cruising at around 55mph indicated and I would describe the performance as adequate. The gearing in my opinion is on the low side, affecting both performance and consumption. On shorter runs 25mpg is more realistic. These figures are tank full to tank full and over long periods of time, so would be pretty accurate. You do not say what year yours is, and it is unlikely that it will be a TDCI engine which will produce slightly better figures and develop more power. We bought it new and it has been pretty reliable after a very dodgy start, and we are very satisfied with it. Hope this helps, any other questions will be pleased to answer them.

by Wingnut Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:36 pm

There are quite a few variants of the Transit but for all that the fuel consumption seems broadly similar. Ours is a Rienza on a Mk6 135T350 TDCi. The van's quite a bit bigger than the Ravenna but the 135bhp motor has plenty of power in hand. Gearing is a bit low overall, top (6th) shows about 2200 RPM at our cruising speed of an indicated 60. The motor is perfectly happy tonking along at 70 plus but apart from the fuel consumption it's noisier, and 60 is much more relaxed whilst still keeping pace with the artics. In our two years of ownership we've averaged about 25mpg with a range of 23 to 28, all tank full to tank full. But the lower end of that range includes quite a bit of towing with a big trailer. The Transit's been trouble free so far, and very pleasant to drive with bags of room in the cab for a hulking 6 footer. Love it, don't plan to change it anytime soon! But after reading these posts, I'll try lightening up on the right foot a bitt:smile!:

Ravenna on Transit. Performance?

Ravenna on Transit. Performance?

Re: Ravenna on Transit. Performance?

Re: Ravenna on Transit. Performance?

Re: Ravenna on Transit. Performance?

Re: Ravenna on Transit. Performance?

Re: Ravenna on Transit. Performance?

Re: Ravenna on Transit. Performance?

Fuel consumption etc.

Re: Ravenna on Transit. Performance?